It can be argued that its the Utah executive branch's duty to appeal the ruling, since they are specifically in charge of advocating for laws and amendments passed by the people of Utah. Even though I agree with the Federal judge's ruling, I don't hold it against the Governor's office for appealing it.

It's past time, but I am hoping that we can put this recockulousness to rest soon. Worrying about what other folks do in their own churches, and in their own homes, with other consenting adults is childish, and it's time to put away childish things...

"Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

This is finally the perfect storm for marriage equality proponents, a state that actually will defend its marriage ban and a favorable judiciary. Marriage equality will be across this land by the end of the decade.

namatad:"Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

Emergency states are granted in situations where it is likely that the lower courts ruling will be overturned. If the COA doesn't issue an emergency stay then you'll have a very good idea of where it will go with the ruling.

Somacandra:It can be argued that its the Utah executive branch's duty to appeal the ruling, since they are specifically in charge of advocating for laws and amendments passed by the people of Utah. Even though I agree with the Federal judge's ruling, I don't hold it against the Governor's office for appealing it.

Exactly. Same thing I thought when Washington State AG Rob McKenna joined the lawsuit to stop the ACA. It's his job and it was a valid question.

sprgrss:Emergency states are granted in situations where it is likely that the lower courts ruling will be overturned.

Emergency stays are also granted when there would be irreparable harm done. For example, if there was a ruling that says it is OK to demolish a house, a stay will usually be granted until appeals are exhausted. The though thing for the state is trying to show that same-sex marriages cause any harm, let alone irreparable harm.

The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned. As-is, gay marriage is legal in Utah. Even if the ruling is overturned, virtually no court would be willing to invalidate those marriages, since it smacks of ex post facto (not that it would be, but it would look like it). So, you would have gays who could be married in Utah, and those who couldn't (the pre-overturn marriages being valid,while no other gay couples would have that option open to them). This would pretty much insure a lawsuit claiming unequal treztment for gays. As there is a vanishingly small chance the ruling for that would invalidate the existing gay marriages, the end result would be a loss for the pro-hatred forces no matter what. They are arguing (quite correctly) that they shouldn't be locked into a loss before they can even make their case. Even the Devil is entitled to a fair hearing. Personally, if I were gay in Utah, I would bedoing everything in my power to get off a valid marriagebefore the matter can be ruled on, since it would make the issue moot, sinceeven a judge that would grznt the stay willi be loath to invalidate a marriage that was valid at the time of its creation (which it currently is)

FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"

There was a time I would've said I'm eagerly awaiting republican legislation that will increase the difficulty of obtaining a divorce from a hetero marriage, but we've sunk to the point that repubs like Cuccinelli have tried that as well.

Stone Meadow:FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

If the judge had just included the line "and raping multiple teenage girls is totes cool" he would be hailed as a state hero

the opposite of charity is justice:Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"There was a time I would've said I'm eagerly awaiting republican legislation that will increase the difficulty of obtaining a divorce from a hetero marriage, but we've sunk to the point that repubs like Cuccinelli have tried that as well.

The Cooch just wants that to prevent his wife from leaving him when he is inevitably caught being used as a cum-dumpster in a truckstop bathroom

phalamir:So, you would have gays who could be married in Utah, and those who couldn't (the pre-overturn marriages being valid,while no other gay couples would have that option open to them). This would pretty much insure a lawsuit claiming unequal treztment for gays.

Stone Meadow:FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

phalamir:Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

If the judge had just included the line "and raping multiple teenage girls is totes cool" he would be hailed as a state hero

I was particularly impressed by his hoisting of Justice Scalia on his own petard...er...prediction that last years' SCOTUS ruling WOULD lead to the overturning of states' ban on same-sex marriage laws.

NeverDrunk23:Why do we need to drag people kicking and screaming into progress all the time? Why can't we leave them behind in their hate and watch them fade into the past?

Actually, these people server a needed purpose. They act as rudders, keeping society from spinning about faster than we can adapt. They keep societies from changing too much too fast. It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive. The only real problem is that these are the kinds of people that have more children than other people.

Stone Meadow:FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...

Stone Meadow:I was particularly impressed by his hoisting of Justice Scalia on his own petard...er...prediction that last years' SCOTUS ruling WOULD lead to the overturning of states' ban on same-sex marriage laws.

It would be epic to see the meltdown if there were a 7-2 ruling by SCOTUS in favor of marriage equality. Scalia and Thomas against and Roberts writing the majority opinion. It's more likely that whatever the Tenth Circuit rules will be allowed to stand without a hearing since it appears the SCOTUS wants this ruled on a state by state basis, at least until the majority of the states have marriage equality.

Serious Black:I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

I'm glad they are appealing, and I hope they take it all the way back to the Supreme Court. The reason the Prop 8 decision didn't end all the gay marriage bans is because of standing, as in the people arguing in favor of Prop 8 didn't have standing to do so. This time, there is no standing issue. If the Supreme Court takes this case, then I have a feeling they will decide in favor of gay marriage nationwide. I do love how the people fighting these gay marriage rulings are really the ones who will make it legal nationwide. That's why I hope everyone with standing continues to fight these rulings. I want these proud crusaders for inequality to be the ones responsible for marriage equality for all. (Much how I love the fact that my home state of Texas is the reason being gay is no longer a crime in the first place.)

namatad:"Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

That's what the NJ Supreme Court said to Chris Christie. We'll see. I would have thought it impossible, but then the NJ Supreme Court did it, unanimously. Really depends a lot on who ends up on the 10th Circuit panel.

shower_in_my_socks:phalamir: So, you would have gays who could be married in Utah, and those who couldn't (the pre-overturn marriages being valid,while no other gay couples would have that option open to them). This would pretty much insure a lawsuit claiming unequal treztment for gays.

But they're already too late. As of yesterday, there are gay couples in Utah who are now married and recognized as married by that state. It does explain some crazy shiat that appeared to be going down at whatever office was issuing the marriage licenses yesterday. Andrew Sullivan re-posted a string of tweets from one of the first people in line to get married.

In short, a few hundred gay couples lined up to get married yesterday, but then the DA showed up and tried to stop it. He failed and the marriages went through. The horse is out of the barn.

Well, then they are screwed. Because I don't think even Kennedy will vote for forcibly de-marrying people who were legally valid to marry at the time of said marriage. Scalia would do it in a heartbeat, and his Tom would folow right along, but from there the Opus Kampf camp gets more shakey

hubiestubert:Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...

Granted, but the conservative movement has been hijacked by the religious right, with all its dominionism and obsession with controlling access to women's hoo-hoos. As a result they are in effect incapable of thinking and acting rationally.

namatad:"Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

The fear is that some folks might be happy, and their neighbors might become Massholes by association. Suddenly, it would lead to Catholics and dog groomers EVERYWHERE...

soporific:Serious Black: I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

I'm glad they are appealing, and I hope they take it all the way back to the Supreme Court. The reason the Prop 8 decision didn't end all the gay marriage bans is because of standing, as in the people arguing in favor of Prop 8 didn't have standing to do so. This time, there is no standing issue. If the Supreme Court takes this case, then I have a feeling they will decide in favor of gay marriage nationwide. I do love how the people fighting these gay marriage rulings are really the ones who will make it legal nationwide. That's why I hope everyone with standing continues to fight these rulings. I want these proud crusaders for inequality to be the ones responsible for marriage equality for all. (Much how I love the fact that my home state of Texas is the reason being gay is no longer a crime in the first place.)

People were agog Scalia was in the majority for that decision on standing, but he was desperate to not have a ruling on the merits.

EngineerAU:Stone Meadow: I was particularly impressed by his hoisting of Justice Scalia on his own petard...er...prediction that last years' SCOTUS ruling WOULD lead to the overturning of states' ban on same-sex marriage laws.

It would be epic to see the meltdown if there were a 7-2 ruling by SCOTUS in favor of marriage equality. Scalia and Thomas against and Roberts writing the majority opinion. It's more likely that whatever the Tenth Circuit rules will be allowed to stand without a hearing since it appears the SCOTUS wants this ruled on a state by state basis, at least until the majority of the states have marriage equality.

I would shiat a brick if the 10th Circuit affirmed the district ruling. That would bring marriage equality to Brownbackistan and Fred Phelps's backyard!

namatad:"Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

"P.S.- we're rather behind in our casework due to the sequester and October shutdown and all that other nonsense. You might have to wait a while."

Stone Meadow:hubiestubert: Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.""I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...

Granted, but the conservative movement has been hijacked by the religious right, with all its dominionism and obsession with controlling access to women's hoo-hoos. As a result they are in effect incapable of thinking and acting rationally.

I was unaware that "has always been solely and totally about" is a definition of "hijacked".

T-Servo:namatad: "Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"Emergency Stay?WHY?In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

"P.S.- we're rather behind in our casework due to the sequester and October shutdown and all that other nonsense. You might have to wait a while."

the opposite of charity is justice: Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"

That's pretty damn funny, considering the history of marriage laws in Utah.

Traditional marriage has always been a sacred, Biblical union between one man and 6-30 pre-pubescent girls

MooseUpNorth:Ed Grubermann: It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive.

Serious question, but do you have an example of this 'sometimes'? Because I'm drawing a total blank on when they've _ever_ been right about anything.

Believe it or not, sometimes the Left will also over-reach and try to pass laws governing personal behavior for the greater good. (the greater good.) Often these are local ordinances run amok, but that's when a proper, sane conservative party is needed to balance out the need for progress with a need for personal liberty.

MFAWG:Somacandra: It can be argued that its the Utah executive branch's duty to appeal the ruling, since they are specifically in charge of advocating for laws and amendments passed by the people of Utah. Even though I agree with the Federal judge's ruling, I don't hold it against the Governor's office for appealing it.

Exactly. Same thing I thought when Washington State AG Rob McKenna joined the lawsuit to stop the ACA. It's his job and it was a valid question.

Not at all the same thing. The ACA in no way conflicted with any provision of Washington law. McKenna was acting against the will of the governor and the majority of voters in the state, and he was way out of line on that one.

And in any event, the executive branch is under no legal or moral obligation to defend or enforce legislative acts which the executive believes, in good faith, is contrary to the Constitution. Just as the Feds may decline to enforce DOMA, or federal marijuana prohibition in Washington and Colorado, the state would be completely within its rights to simply accept the District Court ruling as dispositive. Of course, the state is also within its rights to appeal.

soporific:MooseUpNorth: Ed Grubermann: It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive.

Serious question, but do you have an example of this 'sometimes'? Because I'm drawing a total blank on when they've _ever_ been right about anything.

Believe it or not, sometimes the Left will also over-reach and try to pass laws governing personal behavior for the greater good. (the greater good.) Often these are local ordinances run amok, but that's when a proper, sane conservative party is needed to balance out the need for progress with a need for personal liberty.

Since when was conservatism about "personal liberty", whatever that is?

soporific:Believe it or not, sometimes the Left will also over-reach and try to pass laws governing personal behavior for the greater good. (the greater good.) Often these are local ordinances run amok, but that's when a proper, sane conservative party is needed to balance out the need for progress with a need for personal liberty.

If I understand this correctly, it is OK to think there was a guy with magical glasses who transcribed the "real" Bible to let us know Jesus was American and God cursed the Native Americans to have red skin, but it is NOT OK to think it's OK for two men to get married?

Makes perfect sense.

By the way, I like the photos of the clashes between the gay-marriage supporters and the WBC psychos.